Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..."



C&A said:

He also says that there is no way that this can be repaired, and there is even nothing he can do to avoid the rip getting bigger over time. Is he right there?

Click to expand...

I had a quick nose-around on your shoemaker's web-page and here are your boots (or a very similar pair)



It appears he has done the stay-stitches by machine, nothing wrong with that, many bespoke makers do it like that (and virtually all factories). English bespoke makers (and St Crispin) will place the stay-stitches by hand - 3 or 4 stitches using a much heavier cobbler's thread. I don't think the damage can get any bigger, as the entire row of stitches is broken, but the other three (if they haven't broken yet) might follow suit.

Here is a picture of a St Crispin boot with a hand-stitched stay:.




Is it only one of the stay-stitches that has broken, or all four? A skilled hand-stitcher should be able to repair it (after all. there is enough space to turn the needle). S/he might be able to use a fine thread, utilizing the existing needle holes, or using a heavy waxed thread, re-stitch all four and cover the existing needle holes.



C&A said:

Two quick iphone pictures. I hope they are good enough to show the issue. The maker says I have caused it by putting in the shoe trees wrong. Would you say that's realistic @DWFII?

He also says that there is no way that this can be repaired, and there is even nothing he can do to avoid the rip getting bigger over time. Is he right there?

Click to expand...

I'd say that the leather was skived ( thinned) too much under the stay stitches.

But if the maker really felt that the leather ought to have been thinned that much, he could have reinforced that area with a bit of canvas or even nylon tape.

I always do the stay stitch by hand and I always drop a stitch over the edge of the facings/quarters so that at least one stitch is in full thickness vamp and vamp lining.

I don't believe that the shoe trees did it.

As for the rest, he may be right--it may not be repairable...at least not prettily...and it may get worse if it is not repaired.



bengal-stripe said:

I had a quick nose-around on your shoemaker's web-page and here are your boots (or a very similar pair)



It appears he has done the stay-stitches by machine, nothing wrong with that, many bespoke makers do it like that (and virtually all factories). English bespoke makers (and St Crispin) will place the stay-stitches by hand - 3 or 4 stitches using a much heavier cobbler's thread. I don't think the damage can get any bigger, as the entire row of stitches is broken, but the other three (if they haven't broken yet) might follow suit.

Click to expand...

I believe that's a similar one. IIRC mine was the first and when delivered it came with round laces, not the flat ones that I see in the picture you quoted. But the stay-stitches are done in the same way. Here are two better pictures of the stay-stitching before and after coloring the shoes.

bengal-stripe said:

Is it only one of the stay-stitches that has broken, or all four? A skilled hand-stitcher should be able to repair it (after all. there is enough space to turn the needle). S/he might be able to use a fine thread, utilizing the existing needle holes, or using a heavy waxed thread, re-stitch all four and cover the existing needle holes.

Click to expand...

It's not actually the stitching that came loose. It's the leather of the vamp that ripped. Probably my crappy pictures.

DWFII said:

I'd say that the leather was skived ( thinned) too much under the stay stitches.

But if the maker really felt that the leather ought to have been thinned that much, he could have reinforced that area with a bit of canvas or even nylon tape.

I always do the stay stitch by hand and I always drop a stitch over the edge of the facings/quarters so that at least one stitch is in full thickness vamp and vamp lining.

I don't believe that the shoe trees did it.

As for the rest, he may be right--it may not be repairable...at least not prettily...and it may get worse if it is not repaired.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. It seems all I can do now is enjoy the boots until the rip gets any bigger. Slim chance the maker will then change his mind and offer a remake. He'll probably stick to his claim that it is caused by putting the shoe trees in wrong.



C&A said:

I believe that's a similar one. IIRC mine was the first and when delivered it came with round laces, not the flat ones that I see in the picture you quoted. But the stay-stitches are done in the same way. Here are two better pictures of the stay-stitching before and after coloring the shoes.


It's not actually the stitching that came loose. It's the leather of the vamp that ripped. Probably my crappy pictures.
Thanks for that. It seems all I can do now is enjoy the boots until the rip gets any bigger. Slim chance the maker will then change his mind and offer a remake. He'll probably stick to his claim that it is caused by putting the shoe trees in wrong.

Click to expand...

Don't spread the quarters apart anymore than you have to. Pull on the tongue gently and always upward rather than away from the foot. IOW, don't put anymore strain on the ripped areas than you have to. It is the opening and the spreading of the leather and the edges of the rip that will make it worse, not simply wearing them.

a question regarding
heels...

i have seen heels
from a well respected
mto-rtw factory
made where
the medial side
is higher than
the lateral side
like so:







why is this
?

is there an orthopedic
benefit in such
a layout
?



T4phage said:

a question regarding
heels...

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

i have seen heels
from a well respected
mto-rtw factory
made where
the medial side
is higher than
the lateral side
like so:


why is this
?

is there an orthopedic
benefit in such
a layout

?

Click to expand...

The medial ankle bone--the malleolus-- is higher than the lateral ankle bone. Too high a topline, esp. on the lateral side of the shoe, can cause pain severe enough to make the shoes unwearable.

Apologies...I re-read your post and understand you may have been talking about the heels themselves.

Usually, if the heel is higher on the medial side it is because of the way the last is made. Generally speaking, a wedge is added to the plantar surface of the lateral heel of the last (it's more complicated than that but ...). This effectively "lowers" the lateral side and raises the medial side when the shoe is made.

Functionally...in the shoe... this tends to counteract any tendency to pronate and may provide a bit of arch support.

Many well regarded, vintage models (lasts) were made like this and once you get used to wearing them, they are very comfortable. I have a model turned from an old West End last that is cut like this. I like the fit and feel underneath but I'm not all that excited about the rest of the styling. And I hate trying to balance the shoe side to side...it always looks a little odd to me.

--



T4phage said:

a question regarding
heels...

i have seen heels
from a well respected
mto-rtw factory
made where
the medial side
is higher than
the lateral side
like so:

why is this
?

is there an orthopedic
benefit in such
a layout
?

Click to expand...

Look at the way your bare foot moves when you raise your heel with the forefoot remaining on the ground -- because the line of flexing is at an angle to the mid-line of your foot, the inside/medial part of your heel will in fact be higher than the outside/lateral portion. (You can observe the same effect by lifting the rear of a sheet of paper with the crease at a diagonal.) Since, in a shoe with a heel your heel is likewise elevated relative to the forefoot, the medial heel being a bit higher than the lateral makes sense. Moreover, since most bespoke shoes have a higher heel than RTW, the effect is more noticeable in bespoke shoes. Also, as DW states, it makes the 'making' a bit more challenging and does look a bit unusual as well. I think both of these factors make RTW companies less likely to use such lasts (notwithstanding the factory shoes you show).



DWFII said:

.....I re-read your post and understand you may have been talking about the heels themselves....

--

Click to expand...

yes
thanks to both
you and shoefan
for the explanation

if i am to understand
this type of construction
of the heel would be
more....
'natural' for the
way our foot bends
and also may aid
against pronation
and for some arch support

correct?

i asked this
because a friend
when he wears this
brand of shoes
for a whole day
while being on his
feet
complains that the
muscles in front of
his shins hurt...
and it doesn't happen
with other brands

could it be that
this type of heel
is not good for
people who supinate
since it would only
exacerbate their
problems
?

Probably shoefan is the best person to answer, but there is a school in British bespoke last making that introduces a “twist” into the last: the fore part (ball section) is raised in the opposite direction then the back part of the last (heel). In the case demonstrated, the heel sloping toward the outside should have a ball sloping towards the inside.

It is a bit confusing because Worswick in Golding 1934 (vol 1 page 245) states that the “twist” ought to run in the exact opposite direction:

Suppose a person views a last longitudinally along the bottom with the toe away from the observer. Consider an imaginary tangential plane from the centre of the seat, and one to the thread or contact point. Then if the planes are parallel there is no twist. If they are inclined at an angle there is some twist. It is generally accepted that there should be some twist, with the forepart plane raised towards the inside of the last. This feature is considered to prevent “running over” of the footwear. In some cases lasts are made with no such twist, but never should the forepart plane be inclined above the seat plane on the outside of the last.

Click to expand...

I have checked my bespoke last (made by a very experienced last maker) and there is a slight twist running in the “wrong” direction. The heel (seat) slopes slightly to the outside maybe 1 mm (in the photograph featured, it is probably 3 mm), while the forepart plane is slightly lowered towards the inside. Maybe different feet need different twists.

I also want to add, some last makers subscribe to the twist school, while others don’t. If I remember correctly, my last maker does not really subscribe to “twist”, while old man Cleverley (not sure about the current firm) was a big follower.



bengal-stripe said:

Probably shoefan is the best person to answer, but there is a school in British bespoke last making that introduces a “twist” into the last: the fore part (ball section) is raised in the opposite direction then the back part of the last (heel). In the case demonstrated, the heel sloping toward the outside should have a ball sloping towards the inside.

It is a bit confusing because Worswick in Golding 1934 (vol 1 page 245) states that the “twist” ought to run in the exact opposite direction:
I have checked my bespoke last (made by a very experienced last maker) and there is a slight twist running in the “wrong” direction. The heel (seat) slopes slightly to the outside maybe 1 mm (in the photograph featured, it is probably 3 mm), while the forepart plane is slightly lowered towards the inside. Maybe different feet need different twists.

I also want to add, some last makers subscribe to the twist school, while others don’t. If I remember correctly, my last maker does not really subscribe to “twist”, while old man Cleverley (not sure about the current firm) was a big follower.

Click to expand...

I am certainly not sure I am the best person to answer this, .... but,
the Golding citation does seem contrary to my understanding (FWIW....).

As noted in my explanation earlier, it makes sense that the inside heel of the last would be higher than the outside of the heel. Perhaps the Golding quote is describing it with the last upside down? (I've read this section of Golding myself previously and been confused.)

In the forefoot, one must understand first of all that the bottom of the last is convex, so both inside and outside edges (a.k.a. the feather edge) will be higher than the middle of the last, when the last is placed on the ground. So, what is the 'plane' of the forefoot of the last? Is it a line connecting the two feather lines? It is also the case that the location on the last where the last touches the ground when properly inclined (i.e. with a heel of the correct height) will be more toward the inside of the last ; as an approximation, this will be such that 40% of the last is inside of this point, and 60% is outside/lateral to it. Now, if you have a consistent curvature to the bottom of the last, the outside feather edge will be higher than the inside feather edge, because there is a greater distance, and hence more curvature, to the the outside than the inside. So, if you draw a line connecting the two feather edges across the forefoot, the line will slope down toward the inside. I'll have to look at my last blanks for confirmation, but I think they have a pretty consistent curvature to the bottoms, and hence would be 'twisted' with the line inclined as described. Of course, in books like Golding, I think they go into detail and describe a much greater degree of variation in lasts than one will find today (e.g. oxford vs. derbies vs. boots all have different lasts and with different shapes to the forefoot/cone). I'm not sure most last makers today would be worrying about the 'twist' of the last, even if perhaps they should.

One other aesthetic impact the twist in the forefoot has: because the feather line is lower on the inside than on the outside, when the shoe is finished it can look a little strange, because the welt on the inside is closer to the ground than on the outside. If you are used to factory shoes, on which the welt is at the same height on the inside and outside, the bespoke shoe on a twisted last can look a bit 'off' when viewed from the front when sitting on a flat surface.



shoefan said:

I am certainly not sure I am the best person to answer this,

Click to expand...

Nonsense...you're a good shoemaker and far and away better suited to answer this than those who don't have any experience making shoes, but, for some reason, feel compelled to answer anyway.

shoefan said:

In the forefoot, one must understand first of all that the bottom of the last is convex, so both inside and outside edges (a.k.a. the feather edge) will be higher than the middle of the last, when the last is placed on the ground. So, what is the 'plane' of the forefoot of the last? Is it a line connecting the two feather lines? It is also the case that the location on the last where the last touches the ground when properly inclined (i.e. with a heel of the correct height) will be more toward the inside of the last ; as an approximation, this will be such that 40% of the last is inside of this point, and 60% is outside/lateral to it. Now, if you have a consistent curvature to the bottom of the last, the outside feather edge will be higher than the inside feather edge, because there is a greater distance, and hence more curvature, to the the outside than the inside.

Click to expand...

That's right. You can almost see that point of contact on the last and on the pedograph if you understand the "line of muscular action" (LOMA). It is, as I said in another (?) thread, where the tread line and the LOMA intersect--more to the medial side of the forepart than the centerline of the last.

Didn't Terry Moore help you create your lasts? Do your lasts have that medial "twist?" In my experience...which may not be as extensive as yours if they do...the maker has to understand where the LOMA is, as well as where the centerline is, to properly balance that kind of last. Otherwise it's just guessing.

IMO.

PS...it's interesting to note that in the first two photos above, the welts and outsole edges (and hence the feather edges of the lasts) are sitting at about the same height off 'ground.' In the second photo, the lateral welt may even be a bit lower than the medial welt. So either the shoes are not properly balanced or the lasts don't have a constant bottom radius.

--



T4phage said:

yes
thanks to both
you and shoefan
for the explanation

if i am to understand
this type of construction
of the heel would be
more....
'natural' for the
way our foot bends
and also may aid
against pronation
and for some arch support

correct?

Click to expand...

Probably as good an explanation as any.

It hasn't really been said explicitly, although shoefan alluded to it--these lasts are not "corrective" lasts. They are indeed an attempt to more closely model the foot and foot action.

Such attempts are many and varied across the years. I've seen lasts that had no bottom radius--that were actually concave rather than convex in the forepart. And why not? Feet aren't convex on the plantar surface...not healthy feet at least. When you factor in the metatarsal arch, the foot is arguably concave.

I have old models that have no featherline around the heel--the foot doesn't have a sharp edge or "corner" in the heel seat area. It doesn't have a corner around the front of the foot either and I've heard of lasts that have no feather in the forepart.



DWFII said:

Such attempts are many and varied across the years. I've seen lasts that had no bottom radius--that were actually concave rather than convex in the forepart. And why not? Feet aren't convex on the plantar surface...not healthy feet at least. When you factor in the metatarsal arch, the foot is arguably concave.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about this yesterday as I contemplated the issue of twist and the forepart. I think it would be interesting to try a last with a flat forepart -- I wonder how it would feel? I think the rationale for the convex forepart may be threefold: first, it allows the last to be a bit narrower or lower, since the curvature adds to the length across the bottom (as a curve will be longer than a straight line connecting the curve). I think many people would think the narrower last looks more elegant. Second, perhaps the curvature acts similar to the spring of the last, helping to pull down/tighten the upper as the insole flattens with wear. And third, and perhaps most important, I think it may well be to help protect the outsole stitch, since the welt is elevated relative to the tread line. Obviously, in the old days when the stitching was the only thing keeping the outsole attached, protecting the outsole stitch was absolutely imperative.

My last making friend says that, in his opinion, the bottom of the last is what makes a last comfortable. As such, he likes to put a lot of shape into the bottom from the tread line back to the breast of the heel. I will say that, in looking at the bottom of his lasts, it really seems like you can see muscles under the surface of the last, it looks so much like a foot. He will also sometimes hollow out the last behind the metatarsals, so that the insole will fill in this area and create the equivalent of a metatarsal pad. I have some old factory lasts that have a nicely hollowed out area here as well. I know some say that a metatarsal support can make shoes much more comfortable for many wearers. Of course, with a quality insole and filler, over time the compression of across the ball of the foot will achieve the same effect, to some degree.

DWFII said:

I have old models that have no featherline around the heel--the foot doesn't have a sharp edge or "corner" in the heel seat area. It doesn't have a corner around the front of the foot either and I've heard of lasts that have no feather in the forepart.

Click to expand...

Of course, you are correct that the foot has no 'corner.' On the other hand, when the foot is weight bearing on firm ground, then it does have something of a corner, where the contact of the foot on the ground ends (ie. the edge of the pedograph), although the 'corner' is probably a bit less sharp than in lasts. So, to the extent the last is designed to replicate the feeling of the foot touching the ground, I don't think a feather edge is necessarily a bad idea. That being said, I know it has been asserted that lasts with no heel feather line are more comfortable than those with.

Many years ago, I talked extensively with a highly regarded model maker. He told me that the main reason lasts had a bottom radius was to make the shoe look narrower. I was also told that when shoes are entered into competitions, the longer and narrower sizes are always the ones that are entered because they "show" better. So the notion that a narrower shoe looks more elegant has some currency if only in people's imaginations.

I think your idea that a bottom radius helps to tighten the vamp across the top of the foot makes sense. [Parenthetically...as you mentioned...that theory applies to toe spring as well--a shoe with a nearly flat forepart will not pull the leather tight along the top of the shoe as a shoe with more toe spring. And as a result, at least partially, a shoe without much toe spring tends to crease more than one with.]

As for the feather around the back of the heel, I have shoes I made on lasts like that, and have even modified lasts to have no feather. I like it. I think it is more comfortable. That said, I don't modify every last like that. It's just too convenient to have that line along which to trim the insole and I don't think it affects the comfort all that significantly. Like you, I'm less concerned with it than how the last fits relative to the footprint in the heel area.

But having said that, try this: Put your right foot up on your left knee. Place your left index finger in the center of the plantar surface of the heel and push. Now take your right hand (it will be a bit awkward) and gently squeeze the flesh on both sides of the heel just above the plantar surface. You see what happens? The left index finger is pushed out and away from the heel.

The upshot of this little experiment goes to something one of my early mentors told me years ago--If you combine a convex, radiused configuration with a heel that is only as wide as the heel of the foot (or the pedograph), that pad of flesh...surrounding the bottom and sides of the heel and cushioning the os calcis...will be forced under the foot creating an even thicker cushion.

The feather-less last accentuates that cushioning esp. if the heel seat area is not too wide for the foot--if it is fit closely and with as much deliberation as the forepart is fit.

--

...since we got the pearl ball rolling, here's a photo I saved from the Internet:




The seller listed these as 1910s Florsheims.

I trust hand-welting so close to the outer rim is an additional challenge? These pearls look beautiful still.